N.M. R. App. P. 12-604

As amended through November 1, 2024

Rule 12-604 - Proceedings for removal of public officials within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

A.Scope. This rule governs all proceedings for removal of public officials where jurisdiction is conferred on the Supreme Court by the constitution or by statute.

B.Filing of charges. Charges alleging specific facts constituting one or more constitutional or statutory grounds for removal will be entertained by the Court on presentment by the governor, the attorney general, or any regularly empaneled grand jury. Any such grand jury presentment shall be immediately certified to the Court by the district court clerk where such presentment is filed.

C.Prosecution. All charges so presented to the Court shall be prosecuted by the attorney general unless the attorney general shall decline to act, except that the governor, in case of presentment by the governor, may request the designation of another attorney, in either of which events the Court will appoint another attorney.

D.Service. On any such presentment, the Court shall make and enter its order directing service on the accused and specifying the time for appearance and answer.

E.Answer. Within the time prescribed in the order, the accused may, by way of answer, object to the sufficiency of any charge or specification or deny the truth thereof. Any charge or specification legally sufficient and not denied shall be taken as admitted.

F.Failure to appear. If the accused fails to appear, the Court will proceed to hear and determine the charges in the accused's absence.

G.Trial. The issues shall be tried to the Court without a jury. To the extent that such are applicable and do not conflict with the rules of the Court, the Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts and the Rules of Evidence shall govern the conduct of the trial. The prosecution shall have the burden of proof.

H.Judgment. The decision and judgment of the Court shall be final. Unless the judgment shall expressly provide otherwise, no motion for rehearing or for new trial shall be permitted, and the judgment shall take effect at once.

I.Fees. No docket fee or filing fee shall be required in any removal proceedings. Witness fees and other costs shall be taxed in such manner as may be determined by the Court in its discretion.

N.M. R. App. P. 12-604

As amended, effective 12/1/1993; as amended by Supreme Court Order No. 16-8300-011, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after12/31/2016.

ANNOTATIONS The 2016 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 16-8300-011, effective December 31, 2016, clarified that the rule applies to proceedings for removal of public officials within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; in the heading, added "Proceedings for", and after "public officials", added "within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court"; substituted "on" for "upon" throughout the rule; in Paragraph (B), after "regularly", deleted "impanelled" and added "empaneled", and after "certified to", deleted "Supreme"; in Paragraph (E), after "prescribed in", deleted "such" and added "the"; in Paragraph (F), after "accused", deleted "shall not" and added "fails to"; and in Paragraph (G), after "the rules", changed "this" to "the". The 1993 amendment, effective December 1, 1993, substituted "unless the attorney general" for "unless he" and "by the governor" for "by him" in Paragraph C and substituted "the accused's" for "his" in Paragraph F. Constitutional right to remove terminated. - Official could not be removed from office after repeal and reenactment of constitutional provision creating office, for misconduct prior to repeal, under former appellate procedure, since constitutional right to remove commissioner from that office was terminated when provision creating office was repealed. In re Thaxton, 1968-NMSC-014, 78 N.M. 668, 437 P.2d 129. Equitable and legal actions not distinguished. - Rule 26 of former Supreme Court Rules did not differentiate between actions at law and equitable proceedings. Koran v. White, 1961-NMSC-102, 69 N.M. 46, 363 P.2d 1038. Supreme court would not try the case de novo when the plaintiff failed to attack the findings of the trial court in equitable action under former Supreme Court Rules. Koran v. White, 1961-NMSC-102, 69 N.M. 46, 363 P.2d 1038. Findings of trial court accepted. - The appellant's proposed finding was in direct conflict with the finding made by the trial court, which was not attacked, and, being supported by substantial evidence, was required to be accepted by appellate court. Hyde v. Anderson, 1961-NMSC-005, 68 N.M. 50, 358 P.2d 619. Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. - 63A Am. Jur. 2d Public Officers and Employees §§ 205 to 207, 222 to 231.